DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 12/22/2025 has been entered and is treated herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 includes “a fork receptacle arrangement” but this feature is now present
in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. “A” should be replaced by the or said in order to properly refer to the previously introduced claim element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,622,685 to Van Schijndel in view of US 10,556,783 to Ivey.
Regarding claim 1 Regarding claim Van Schijndel discloses an apparatus, comprising: a left assembly (35 on left in figure 4) comprising a left support, a left #1 shaft (one instance of 39) configured to cantilever from the left support when in an extended position, and a left #2 shaft (another instance of 39) configured to cantilever from the left support and when in an extended position to be disposed above the left #1 shaft (see figure 8, the vertical position of each instance of 39 is adjustable by37); a right assembly (35 on right side in figure 4) comprising a right support, a right #1 shaft (first instance of 39) configured to cantilever from the right support when in an extended position, and a right #2 shaft (another instance of 39) configured to cantilever from the right support when in an extended position and to be disposed above the right #1 shaft; wherein the left #1 shaft and the right #1 shaft are selectively extendable and retractable and configured to support a first horizontal load when in the extended position (see figure 8); and wherein the left #2 shaft and the right #2 shaft are selectively extendable and retractable and configured to support a second horizontal load over the first horizontal load when in the extended position (each shaft 39 is independently adjustable via 40) the apparatus further comprising a left #1 actuator (40) secured to the left support and to the left #1 shaft and configured to move the left #1 shaft between the extended position and a retracted position (see e.g., figure 9); a left #2 actuator (40) secured to the left support and to the left #2 shaft and configured to move the left #2 shaft between the extended position and a retracted position (see e.g., figure 9); a right #1 actuator (40) secured to the right support and to the right #1 shaft and configured to move the right #1 shaft between the extended position and a retracted position; and a right #2 actuator (40) secured to the right support and to the right #2 shaft and configured to move the right #2 shaft between the extended position and a retracted position.
Van Schijndel does not disclose a fork receptacle arrangement configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle.
Ivey teaches an apparatus for handling loads including a fork receptacle arrangement (see e.g., 6a and 6b) configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle in order to provide more flexible loading and unloading as well as attaching an additional implement to a standard fork lift. (see col. 2 lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Van Schijndel to include a fork receptacle arrangement configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle, as taught by Ivey, in order to provide more flexible loading and unloading as well as attaching an additional implement to a standard fork lift. Additionally, it is noted that using fork pockets/receptacles to attach an implement to a standard fork lift is widely used in the area of article handling.
Regarding claim 2 Van Schijndel discloses the left assembly further comprises a left stop, wherein when in a retracted position the left #1 shaft and the left #2 shaft are fully retracted behind the left stop; and wherein the right assembly further comprises a right stop, wherein when in a retracted position the right #1 shaft and the right #2 shaft are fully retracted behind the right stop. See figure 9 showing some shafts fully retracted behind the front face of the support to which they are connected.
Regarding claim 3 Van Schijndel discloses a platform (30/32, see figure 4) configured to secure the left assembly and the right assembly in a fixed positional relationship with each other.
Regarding claim 7 Van Schijndel discloses the left #1 actuator and the left #2 actuator are disposed in the left support (see figures 4-5); wherein the right #1 actuator and the right #2 actuator are disposed in the right support (see figures 4-5); wherein a forward side of the left support acts as a left stop behind which the left #1 shaft and the left #2 shaft retract; and wherein a forward side of the right support acts as a right stop behind which the right #1 shaft and the right #2 shaft retract (see figure 9 showing some shafts fully retracted behind the front face of the support to which they are connected).
Regarding claim 8 Van Schijndel discloses the left #1 shaft, the left #2 shaft, the right #1 shaft, and the right #2 shaft extend forward when in respective extended positions; and wherein the left #1 actuator, the left #2 actuator, the right #1 actuator, and the right #2 actuator extend rearward when in respective extended positions, See figure 9, each shaft is independently adjustable via its own actuator 40.
Regarding claim 9 Van Schijndel discloses a controller in data communication with the left #1 actuator, the left #2 actuator, the right #1 actuator, and the right #2 actuator; wherein the controller is configured to enable: independent control of mutual extension and retraction of the left #1 shaft with the right #1 shaft; and independent control of mutual extension and retraction of the left #2 shaft with the right #2 shaft (col. 6 lines 50-55, each actuator is individually controllable).
Regarding claim 17 Van Schijndel discloses an apparatus, comprising: platform configured to be secured to forks or a load-carrying vehicle (30/32); a left assembly, comprising: a left support (35 on left in figure 4) secured to a left end of the platform; a left #1 shaft (first instance of 39); a left #1 actuator (40) configured to cantilever the left #1 shaft forward from the left support to an extended position and to retract the left #1 shaft at least partly into the left support to a retracted position; a left #2 shaft (another instance of 39) disposed above the left #1 shaft; and a left #2 actuator (40) configured to cantilever the left #2 shaft forward from the left support to an extended position and to retract the left #2 shaft at least partly into the left support to a retracted position; and a right assembly, comprising: a right support (35 on right in figure 4), secured to a right end of the platform; a right #1 shaft (first instance of 39); a right #1 actuator (40) configured to cantilever the right #1 shaft forward from the right support to an extended position and to retract the right #1 shaft at least partly into the right support to a retracted position; a right #2 shaft (another instance of 39) disposed above the right #1 shaft (see figure 8, each instance of 39 is independently movable vertically via 37); and a right #2 actuator (40) configured to cantilever the right #2 shaft forward from the right support to an extended position and to retract the right #2 shaft at least partly into the right support to a retracted position, wherein the platform is secured to an upper end of the left assembly and an upper end of the right assembly (see figure 4).
Van Schijndel does not disclose a fork receptacle arrangement configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle and comprising at least one fork receptacle comprising a rectangular passage.
Ivey teaches an apparatus for handling loads including a fork receptacle arrangement (see 6a and 6b) configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle and comprising at least one fork receptacle comprising a rectangular passage (see e.g., 6a and 6b) in order to provide more flexible loading and unloading as well as attaching an additional implement to a standard fork lift. (see col. 2 lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Van Schijndel to include a fork receptacle arrangement configured to receive fork of a load-carrying vehicle and comprising at least one fork receptacle comprising a rectangular passage, as taught by Ivey, in order to provide more flexible loading and unloading as well as attaching an additional implement to a standard fork lift. Additionally, it is noted that using fork pockets/receptacles to attach an implement to a standard fork lift is widely used in the area of article handling.
Regarding claim 19 Van Schijndel discloses the left support extends rearward relative to the platform and the left #1 shaft and the left #2 shaft extend forward relative to the platform from the left support; and wherein the right support extends rearward relative to the platform and the right #1 shaft and the right #2 shaft extend forward relative to the platform from the right support (see figure 4, forward is toward the inside and rearward toward the outside).
Regarding claim 20 Van Schijndel discloses a controller in data communication with the left #1 actuator, the left #2 actuator, the right #1 actuator, and the right #2 actuator; wherein the controller is configured to enable: independent control of mutual extension and retraction of the left #1 shaft with the right #1 shaft; and independent control of mutual extension and retraction of the left #2 shaft with the right #2 shaft (col. 6 lines 50-55, each actuator is individually controllable).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 10 the configuration of the extendable and retractable shafts combined with the left and right guards and the fork receptacle arrangement differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Regarding claims 4 and 18 the connections of the left and right sides such that the left and right assemblies can be positioned along the platform differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Schijndel and Ivey as set forth in detail above. It is noted that attaching implements to fork lifts via fork receptacles (as taught by Ivey) is well known and widely used in the area of article handling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652